sala.lab.asu.edusala.lab.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ss_cos… · web viewsala.lab.asu.edu

Forthcoming (2018). Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

From Basic Research to Applied Solutions: Are Two Approaches to Sustainability Science

Emerging?

AUTHORS: Doran, Elizabeth M. B.a,1,*, Golden, Jay S.a,2, and Turner II, B. L.b

a Division of Earth & Ocean Sciences-Nicholas School of the Environment, Box 90328, 9 Circuit Drive, Environment Hall, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0328; elizabeth.doran@uvm.edu; goldenj17@ecu.edu

b School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning & School of Sustainability, P.O. Box 875302, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5302; billie.l.turner@asu.edu

*Corresponding Author

Abstract:

Despite its widespread emergence and adoption, sustainability science continues to suffer from

definitional ambiguity within the academe. A review of efforts to provide direction and structure to the

science reveal a continuum of approaches anchored at either end by differing visions of how the

science interfaces with practice (solutions). At one end, basic science of societally defined problems

informs decisions about possible solutions and their application. At the other end, applied research

directly affects the options available to decision makers. While clear from the literature, we also point

to survey data that suggests the dichotomy does not appear to be as apparent in the minds of

practitioners.

1 Present address: VT EPSCoR BREE and Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, 23 Mansfield Ave, Burlington, VT 05401 2 Present address: Vice Chancellor and Department of Engineering, 2200 S Charles Blvd Ste 1500, Mail Stop 157, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858-4353

| 1

Introduction

Despite the widespread emergence of sustainability science, complete with associated journals [1-4]

and programs of study [5-8], sustainability per se remains surrounded by conceptual ambiguity, even

within the research academy at large [9]. In recent years, several efforts to characterize sustainability

research using bibliographic analysis have been undertaken [10-17]. These studies reveal that the core

concerns of sustainability science are rooted in consideration of the function of the Earth system and

ecosystems that enable resource provisioning and other environmental services [12,17,18], and, in the

socioeconomic development and well-being of humankind [17,19], including questions of equity [20]

and justice [21].

Within this context, various formal and informal assessments and frameworks have emerged

worldwide that seek to provide structure and direction to the theory and application of sustainability

science. These efforts, we propose, have formed a continuum of characteristics anchored at either end

by differing visions of how this science interfaces with practice (solutions), consistent with typology

of science (Fig. 1). At one end, proposed implicitly and explicitly in various publications [1,3,4,22],

basic science of societally defined problems informs decisions about possible solutions and

applications, akin to the Pasteur quadrant of science in Stokes 1997 formulation3 [23]. The other end

of the spectrum coincides with Edison’s quadrant engaged in applied research seeking solutions, often

3 At the end of World War II, Vannevar Bush, the Director of Scientific Research and Development during the war, proposed a peace time role for science that was anchored by “basic research” on the one hand and “applied research” on the other. Basic research was defined as research performed “without thought of practical ends.” Applied research, in contrast, was then intended to convert discoveries from basic science into technological innovations to meet “the full range of society’s economic, defense, health, and other needs” (Stokes, 1997). In his 1997 critique, Donald Stokes extended the dichotomy into a two-dimensional spatial grid oriented along two axis, the first: consideration of use, the second: quest for fundamental understanding. Stokes placed Bush’s basic research in the low use/high understanding quadrant and labeled it Bohr’s Quadrant in honor of Niels Bohr, the Nobel Prize winning physicist. He further placed Bush’s applied research in the high use/low understanding quadrant and labeled it Edison’s Quadrant honoring Thomas Edison, the prolific American inventor. Finally, Stokes proposed a third role for science, naming the high use/high understanding quadrant Pasteur’s quadrant, in honor of Louis Pasteur, a French biologist, microbiologist and chemist whose work was revolutionary for vaccines, microbial fermentation and pasteurization.

| 2

technological in kind, that directly affect the options available for decision makers [24]. This approach

has no formal literature proclamation but, we suggest, has emerged in the practice of certain research

communities (e.g. [2,24-30]).

Figure 1. Stokes Quadrant for classification of research inspiration (modified from Stokes, 1997)

Is this view of the range of engagement in sustainability/sustainability science, foremost the Pasteur-

Edison anchors, accurate? Does it help to capture the state-of-the-art of this emerging field or fields of

study and research? We explore these questions through two initial, if incomplete, data sources—a

subjective assessment of publications and use of a small-sample practitioner survey.

| 3

Assessment of Publications

We drew 200 publications from more than 60 journals and books from across a wide range of

disciplines contributing to “the science of sustainability” identified by Bettencourt and Kaur [10: Fig.

3]. This sample is by no means exhaustive, but captures several broad themes and some of the more

highly cited works within the primary sustainability outlets and related journals [14].

<Table 1 here>

This literature reveals to us a set of shared research questions consistent with the sustainability

challenge of meeting the needs of humanity while preserving the life support systems of Earth [31].

This framing, in turn, leads to a shared phenomenon of study, social-environmental systems (SES;

a.k.a. coupled human-environment systems, coupled human-natural systems, social-ecological

systems), although individual research efforts tend to examine only a subset of the components or

processes in these systems by way of analyses that vary in their scale dynamics. Conceptually, this

literature tends to address such common themes as tradeoffs between subsystems or among

components within one subsystem (e.g., [32]); complexity, non-linearity and uncertainty (e.g., [33]);

resilience and vulnerability (e.g., [34,35]); equity and intergenerational wealth in which natural capital

is included [36,37]; and, adaptive management (e.g., [38]).

A substantial cohort of the reviewed research focused on basic research of societally defined

sustainability problems (Pasteur’s quadrant), somewhat akin to the agricultural sciences [20]. These

problems are treated as the outcome of interacting processes operating between and within the two

subsystems at multiple scalar dimensions (spatio-temporal and hierarchical). Employing mixed

methods [39,40] within scientific modes of understanding, the goal is to understand these interactions,

or parts of them, sufficiently to project the states of SESs and their consequences into the future [41],

thus providing science-based insights for decision-making (e.g., [40,42,43]). It is recognized, however,

| 4

that complexity of SESs are such that few, if any, sustainability panaceas exist [44,45], reflecting the

inherent interdependencies in human-environmental relationships in the Anthropocene [46]. We

recognize at least two subgroups among this cohort. The first is an outgrowth of interest in global

environmental change but refocused on sustainable development [20,47-49]; the second includes the

longstanding efforts addressing environment-development, resource management, and related topics

such as the equity in human wellbeing (e.g. [50-53]).

A second substantial cohort emerged from practitioners trained and working largely in the applied

sciences, including engineering and business management, and focused on the implementation of

technical and managerial solutions to particular sets of sustainability challenges [2]. Many of these

efforts are tied to long-standing efforts originating in industry to assess the impact of products and

services across multiple dimensions, like the life cycle assessment methodology, which has become a

sub-discipline onto itself [54,55], or the application oriented parts of industrial ecology [27]. Research

approaches in this cohort tend to separate the techno-economic and social dimensions of SESs

consistent with the sustainability triangle concept (i.e., nature, society, and economy: [56-62]), and

attempts to identify a solution that balances the three legs of the triangle. Analyses might treat each leg

separately before joining them [58] or employ integrated, context specific models [59]. Regardless, the

objective is not to project the state of the SES into the future per se, although the work recognizes that,

for example, consequential LCA [63,64] is at times an approach to project consequences of actions

into the future. Rather, the focus of triparte methods is to design solutions based on integrative

understanding. While the appropriate application of techno-managerial solutions to augment

sustainability is debated in many applied fields [60,28,29], we find the methods are used to address an

array of challenges, including nexus interactions between energy, water, food and health [65-67], the

availability and security of the supply chains as well as production-consumption systems [2,30,68,69],

and the built environment [70,71].

| 5

Practitioner Survey

In addition, we employed an online survey instrument and invited researchers worldwide to provide

insights on our views taken from the literature (Table 1). The survey was active from October 3-17,

2014. Individual candidates for survey participation were identified: [1] from the corresponding author

information provided in the published literature reviewed (N = 82); [2] via affiliation with a selection

of academic or research programs advertising connections to sustainability science (N = 1,392),

including 16 in the U.S. and 11 external to the U.S.; and [3] from national and international

government agencies and other organizations noted for sustainability activities (N = 32). The survey

instrument included 23 questions and was open for 14 days. Of the total population contacted (N =

1,506), 537 (36%) opened the survey and 97 (7%) responded, ten of which were incomplete, resulting

in 87 responses used in this analysis. The survey data were addressed by way of Chi-square tests for

correlation with a tolerance threshold of 95 percent; and, using analysis of variation (ANOVA) tests to

assess variance in mean values between multiple groups, again assuming a 95 percent confidence

threshold [72-74]. Owing to selection methods and sample size, the results must be considered

exploratory in kind.

<Table 2 here>

The survey results (Table 2) point to certain distinctions in our Pasteur-Edison spectrum as valid,

others more equivocal, specifically, the following two findings.

(1) The distinctive Pasteur and Edison quadrant categories described by Stokes [23] and the audiences

each addressed, as we identified in the literature, are apparent but much more blurred than we

anticipated. This suggests that practitioners array their research and the field in multiple gradations of

the dichotomy we supposed.

| 6

Specifically, asked to identify their research directly with Stokes classification scheme (Question #1),

the distinctions between the Pasteur and Edison clusters revealed a strong relationship between

disciplinary affiliation and research approach (χ2 = 39.31, df = 15, p < 0.05), but with an unexpected

twist. In contrast to their solution interests (above), applied researchers identified their approach rather

evenly: as Edison’s quadrant (34%), Pasteur’s quadrant (28%), and a mix of Edison’s with Pasteur’s

(31%). Natural science and social science researchers in contrast were biased toward reporting their

research as a mix of Edison’s and Pasteur’s (50% and 40% respectively), while another cluster

identified with Pasteur’s approach (25% and 16% respectively). Combined, these two approaches

constituted 63% of the responses for natural and social scientists. While statistically differentiated,

these results suggest a bit more blurring of the two approaches, at least in regard to how those

registering “implementing alternative solutions” and “complex human-environment interactions”

interpreted their aims within Stokes classification scheme.

When asked to identify sustainability science at large within Stokes classification scheme (Question

#2), the disciplinary communities remain strong (χ2 = 21.99, df = 12, p < 0.05), but appear to coalesce

towards an Edison-Pasteur mix identification. A majority of 55% of those answering survey Question

#2 (N = 82) identified sustainability science at large as either “use inspired basic research” (Pasteur’s

quadrant) (17%) or a “mix” of this with application research (Edison’s quadrant) (38%). Of applied

researchers, 74% identified the field as either residing in Pasteur’s quadrant or an Edison-Pasteur mix

(35% and 39% respectively). Natural scientists, in contrast, strongly characterize the field as an

Edison-Pasteur mix (60%), while social scientists were more divided: Pasteur’s quadrant (32%),

Edison-Pasteur mix (21%). Again, this last result may reflect the number of social scientists that did

not classify themselves as sustainability scientists (below).

(2) Despite the Pasteur-Edison orientation of the researchers surveyed, an overwhelming response to

Question 3 (N = 76) indicates that the primary research audience for all respondents was “other

| 7

scientists” (55%). Applied science researchers, however and as expected, were more likely to

collaborate with industry partners “very often” (43%) compared to the natural and social science

researchers reporting to “never” collaborate with industry partners (43%) (Question #4; χ2 = 15.76, df

= 8, p < 0.05).

Summary – Findings and Needed Research

Our exploration into the questions posed about sustainability science reveals that distinctions we

observed in the literature about the field may be far less apparent in the minds of practitioners and that

the Stokes dichotomy is a useful heuristic but may belie the variance that exists. These observations,

however, should be viewed cautiously. Our survey results imply, perhaps strongly so, the existence of

an emerging dichotomy of approaches within the maturing field of sustainability science, however

they may reflect the biases in our survey sample. In particular, our respondents were overwhelmingly

English speaking, based in the United States (80%), holding or having held tenured positions within

universities and research institutions (61%), and were not evenly distributed across the many fields of

study from which sustainability researchers are drawn. While our findings are consistent with previous

undertakings of this kind [10,13,15], a more inclusive survey by world region, base language, and

profession is required to determine the validity of our base claims and survey results. Such

inclusiveness should increase the sample size of sustainability researchers housed or trained within the

humanities (N = 3 in our survey) in our review, and might further aim to distinguish results between

researchers identifying as sustainability scientists versus those affiliated with sustainability programs

but not identifying as sustainability scientists. Finally, while we understand from this study that there

is a bias in knowledge production oriented inward toward the scientific community and that Edison

practitioners exhibit a propensity to collaborate with industry partners, we did not fully explore the

dimensions of involvement stakeholders take in knowledge production and translation to practice

[75,76]. Therefore, additional attention should also be given to the distinctions between the knowledge

| 8

emanating from those researchers identified as Pasteur and Edison practitioners and the role that

knowledge plays in pathways of decision-making.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank William C. Clark, PhD of Harvard University and anonymous reviewers for critiques of

earlier drafts and presentations of this paper. Minor financial support was provided by VT EPSCoR

Grant No. NSF OIA 1556770 during the final preparation of this manuscript. The opinions offered are

solely those of the authors.

References

* of special interest** of outstanding interest

1. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, et al.: Sustainability Science. Science 2001, 292:641-642.

2. Komiyama H, Takeuchi K: Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustainability Science 2006, 1:1-6.

3. Lubchenco J: Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science. Science 1998, 279:491-497.

4. Clark WC: Sustainability Science: A room of its own. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007, 104:1737-1738.

5. Sherren K: Balancing the disciplines: A multidisciplinary perspective on sustainability curriculum content. Australian Journal of Environmental Education 2005, 21:97-106.

6. Figueiro PS, Raufflet E: Sustainability in higher education: a systematic review with focus on management education. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015, 106:22-33.

7. Dentoni D, Bitzer V: The role(s) of universities in dealing with global wicked problems through multi-stakeholder initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015, 106:68-78.

8. Hume T, Barry J: Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable Development. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, edn 2. Edited by; 2015. vol 7.]

9. White MA: Sustainability: I know it when I see it. Ecological Economics 2013, 86:213-217.**10. Bettencourt LMA, Kaur J: Evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences 2011, 108:19540-19545.The explosive growth of sustainability science is documented through an extensive cross-

discipinary and international assessment of the literature.

| 9

*11. Kajikawa Y, Saito O, Takeuchi K: Academic landscape of 10 years of sustainability science. Sustainability Science 2017, 12:869-873.

The evolving topical landscape of sustainability science research is documented using an annualized citation network analysis of published literature from both the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index. The researchers find that in 2016, “Environmental and Social Systems” is the largest citation cluster, with secondary clusters belonging to “Economy and Business Systems,” “Energy Systems,” “Fishery and Forestry Systems,” “Health,” “Industry,” and “Urban and Transport Systems.”

12. Kajikawa Y: Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustainability Science 2008, 3:215-239.

13. Kajikawa Y, Ohno J, Takeda Y, Matsushima K, Komiyama H: Creating an academic landscape of sustainability science: an analysis of the citation network. Sustainability Science 2007, 2:221-231.13. Buter RK, Van Raan AFJ: Identification and analysis of the highly cited knowledge base of sustainability science. Sustainability Science 2013, 8:253-267.

14. Buter RK, Van Raan AFJ: Identification and analysis of the highly cited knowledge base of sustainability science. Sustainability Science 2013, 8:253-267.

15. Kajikawa Y, Tacoa F, Yamaguchi K: Sustainability Science: the changing landscape of sustainability research. Sustainability Science 2014, 9:431-438.

16. Aisati Mh, Chi Y, Fowler N, von Hindenburg H, Ruth D, Terheggen P, Perkins N, Bos C, Pan L, Agnew K, et al.: Sustainability Science in a Global Landscape. In Research Initiatives. Edited by Bos C. http://www.elsevier.com: Elsevier & SciDev.Net; 2015:92.

*17. Bolis I, Morioka SN, Sznelwar LI: When sustainable development risks losing its meaning. Delimiting the concept with a comprehensive literature review and a conceptual model. Journal of Cleaner Production 2014, 83:7-20.

The authors provide a comprehensive review of sustainable development based on a bibliographic literature review and hermeneutic analysis. This analysis and discussion is unique compared to other bibliographically based reviews of the fields. The authors also propose a conceputal model for sustainable development with consideration for natural resources, satisfaction of human needs and decision making.

18. Miller TR: Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustainability Science 2013, 8:279-293.

**19. Heinrichs H, Martins P, Michelsen G, Wiek A (Ed): Sustainability Science: An Introduction Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer; 2016.

This volume presents a cross-section of the multiple dimensions of sustianability with twenty eight chapters ranging from ethics to art to climate change and consumption. Through this approach, the editors seek to provide the building blocks of a comprehensive perspective on sustainability science written by experts in the fields. The volume is geared as an introduction to the field for students specifically.

20. Clark WC, Dickson NM: Sustainability Science: The Emerging Research Program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2003, 100:8059-8061.

21. Boone CG, Fragkias M (Ed): Urbanization and Sustainability: Linking Urban Ecology, Environmental Justice and Global Environmental Change Dordecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer; 2013.

**22. Matson P, Clark WC, Andersson K: Pursuing Sustainability: A Guide to the Science and Practice: Princeton University Press; 2016.

A framework for understanding and linking knowledge to action for sustainable development is proposed. The authors use four case studies thoughout to illustrate key concepts including the link between sustainability goals and underlying determinants of dynamic social-environmental systems. Additional chapters address governance and links between knowledge and action. The book is geared toward practioners and students at all levels.

| 10

23. Stokes DE: Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation: Brookings Institution Press; 1997.

24. Dodds R, Venables R: Engineering for Sustainable Development: Guiding Principles. Edited by Dodds R, Venables R: The Royal Academy of Engineering; 2005.

25. Graedel TE, Allenby BR: Industrial ecology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall; 1995.26. Anastas PT, Zimmerman JB: Peer Reviewed: Design Through the 12 Principles of Green

Engineering. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37:94A-101A.27. Weisz H, Suh S, Graedel TE: Industrial Ecology: The role of manufactured capital in

sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2015, 112:6260-6264.28. Matlin S A, Mehta G, Hopf H, Krief A: The role of chemistry in inventing a sustainable future.

Nature Chemistry 2015, 7:941-943.*29. Matlin S A, Mehta G, Hopf H, Krief A: One-world chemistry and systems thinking. Nature

Chemistry 2016, 8:393-398.Argues for the role of chemistry as a central “sustainability science” that leverages the

foundational nature of chemistry knowledge and couples that with systems thinking and integration with other disciplines to address such challenges as the persistent presence of chloroflourocarbons in the atmosphere and plastic waste in the oceans.

30. Vergragt P, Akenji L, Dewick P: Sustainable production, consumption, and livelihoods: global and regional research perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production 2014, 63:1-12.

31. WCED: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future - A/42/427 Annex - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements. Edited by Brundtland GH: United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development; 1987.

32. Bateman IJ, Harwood AR, Mace GM, Watson RT, Abson DJ, Andrews B, Binner A, Crowe A, Day BH, Dugdale S, et al.: Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom. Science 2013, 341:45-50.

33. Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E, Hall JW, Lucht W, Rahmstorf S, Schellnhuber HJ: Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2008, 105:1786-1793.

34. Turner II BL: Vulnerability and resilience: Coalescing or paralleling approaches for sustainability science? Global Environmental Change 2010, 20:570-576.

**35. Becker P: Sustainability Science: Managing risk and resilience for sustainable development edn 1. Oxford, UK: Elsevier; 2014.

In this three part volume, the author provides historical context and emergence of sustinable development and risk; offers a conceptual framework combining risk and resilience for understanding today's sustainability challenges including drought, disesases, land degredation and social conflict; and, discusses the role of a changing science in developing knowledge and solving problems. This book is geared toward practioners and graduate level students in the discipline.

36. Dasgupta P: Nature in Economics. Environmental and Resource Economics 2008, 39:1-7.37. Duraiappah AK, Muñoz P: Inclusive wealth: a tool for the United Nations. Environment and

Development Economics 2012, 17:362-367.38. Tompkins EL, Adger WN: Does Adaptive Management of Natural Resources Enhance

Resilience to Climate Change? Ecology and Society 2004, 9:10.39. Rindfuss RR, Walsh SJ, Turner BL, Fox J, Mishra V: Developing a science of land change:

Challenges and methodological issues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2004, 101:13976-13981.

40. Turner II BL, Janetos AC, Verburg PH, Murray AT: Land system architecture: Using land systems to adapt and mitigate global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 2013, 23:395-397.

| 11

41. Kishita Y, Hara K, Uwasu M, Umeda Y: Research needs and challenges faced in supporting scenario design in sustainability science: a literature review. Sustainability Science 2016, 11:331-347.

42. Schellnhuber HJ: 'Earth system' analysis and the second Copernican revolution. Nature 1999, 402:C19-C23.

43. Hoffmann M, Lubell M, Hillis V: Linking knowledge and action through mental models of sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2014, 111:13016-13021.

44. Ostrom E: A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007, 104:15181-15187.

45. Ostrom E, Janssen MA, Anderies JM: Going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007, 104:15176-15178.

46. Crutzen PJ: Anthropocene man. Nature 2010, 467.47. Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N,

Kasperson JX, Luers A, Martello ML, et al.: A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2003, 100:8074-8079.

48. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB: Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2003, 100:8086-8091.

*49. Leemans R: The lessons learned from shifting from global-change research programmes to transdisciplinary sustainability science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 19:103-110.

Personal insight and perspective from the front lines of the transition from the international research program ESSP to Future Earth is provided. The author’s experience highlights the challenge of reaching consensus among multi-stakeholder groups as was the case with the development of the Future Earth conceptual framework for research, and the challenge of implimenting effective transdisciplineary research structures and governance.

50. Ostrom E: A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 2009, 325:419-422.

51. Anderies JM, Rodriguez AA, Janssen MA, Cifdaloz O: Panaceas, uncertainty, and the robust control framework in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007, 104:15194-15199.

52. Graedel TE, Klee RJ: Getting Serious about Sustainability. Environmental Science & Technology 2002, 36:523-529.

53. Adrianto L, Matsuda Y, Sakuma Y: Assessing local sustainability of fisheries system: a multi-criteria participatory approach with the case of Yoron Island, Kagoshima prefecture, Japan. Marine Policy 2005, 29:9-23.

54. Curran M: Life Cycle Assessment: a review of the methodology and its application to sustainability. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2013, 2:273-277.

*55. Onat N C, Kucukvar M, Halog A, Cloutier S: Systems Thinking for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Recent Developments, Applications, and Future Perspectives. Sustainability 2017 9:706.

This review provides an overview of recent research to extend traditional LCA techniques to include sustainability dimensions with additional indicators to capture social, environmental and economic system dimensions and in the context of expanded system scope.

56. Hecht AD, Fiksel J, Folton SC, Yosie TF, Hawkins NC, Leueberger H, Golden JS, Lovejoy TE: Creating the future we want. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 2012, 8.

| 12

57. Kloepffer W: Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2008, 13:89-95.

58. Elkington J: Cannibals with forks : the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island, BC ; Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers; 1998.

59. Fiksel J: A systems view of sustainability: The triple value model. Environmental Development 2012, 2:138-141.

60. Iles A, Mulvihill MJ: Collaboration Across Disciplines for Sustainability: Green Chemistry as an Emerging Multistakeholder Community. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46:5643-5649.57. von Hauff M, Wilderer PA: Industrial ecology: engineered representation of sustainability. Sustainability Science 2008, 3:103-115.

61. von Hauff M, Wilderer PA: Industrial ecology: engineered representation of sustainability. Sustainability Science 2008, 3:103-115.

62. Mihelcic JR, Crittenden JC, Small MJ, Shonnard DR, Hokanson DR, Zhang Q, Chen H, Sorby SA, James VU, Sutherland JW, et al.: Sustainability Science and Engineering:  The Emergence of a New Metadiscipline. Environmental Science & Technology 2003, 37:5314-5324.

63. Marsiglia A, Benetto E, Rege S, Jury C: Modeling approaches for consequential life-cycle assessment (C-LCA) of bioenergy: Critical review and proposed framework for biogas production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013, 25:768-781.

64. Zamagni A, Guinee J, Heijungs R, Masoni P, Raggi A: Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2012, 17:904-918.

65. Marshall JD, Toffel MW: Framing the Elusive Concept of Sustainability:  A Sustainability Hierarchy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 39:673-682.

66. Bazilian M, Rogner H, Howells M, Hermann S, Arent D, Gielen D, Steduto P, Mueller A, Komor P, Tol RSJ, et al.: Considering the energy, water and food nexus: Towards an integrated modelling approach. Energy Policy 2011, 39:7896-7906.

67. Elliott SJ: The transdisciplinary knowledge journey: a suggested framework for research at the water-health nexus. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2011, 3:527-530.

68. Lebel L, Lorek S: Enabling Sustainable Production-Consumption Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2008, 33:241-275.

69. Jaeger-Erben M, Ruckert-John J, Schafer M: Sustainable consumption through social innovation: a typology of innovations for sustainable consumption practices. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015, 108:784-798.

70. Golden JS, Brazel A, Salmond J, Laws D: Energy and Water Sustainability: The Role of Urban Climate Change from Metropolitan Infrastructure. Journal of Green Building 2006, 1:124-138.

71. Seto KC, Golden JS, Alberti M, Turner, BLII: Sustainability in an urbanizing planet. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2017, 114:8935-8938

72. Pallant J: SPSS survival manual : a step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS edn 5. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: McGraw Hill; 2013.

73. Field AP: Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics : and sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll edn 4. Los Angeles: Sage; 2013.

74. Wilcox RR: Understanding the Practical Advantages of Modern ANOVA Methods. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 2002, 31:399-412.

75. Ravetz J: Post-normal science and the complexity of transitions toward sustainability. Ecological Complexity 2006, 3:275-284.

76. Mielke J, Vermaben H, Ellenbeck S, Milan B F: Stakeholder invovlement in sustainability science—A critical view. Energy Research & Social Science 2016, 17:71-81.

| 13

Table 1. Journals included in literature review

Ambio Harvard Business ReviewAnnual Review of Ecology, Evolution & Systematics International Journal of Life Cycle AssessmentAnnual Review of Environment and Resources Integrative ZoologyAnnual Review of Ecology and Systematics International Journal of Animal ScienceAnnual Reviews in Control Journal of Agricultural and Environmental EthicsAsian Development Review Journal of Cleaner ProductionBiodiversity and Conservation Journal of Experimental BotanyBiological Reviews Journal of Industrial EcologyBioscience Management ScienceBioSystems Mathematics and Computers in SimulationsBusiness Strategy and the Environment Nature

Nature PhysicsChemical Engineering Science NonlinearityEcological Complexity PANSEcological Economics Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society BEcological Modeling PNASEcology and Society Policy and SocietyEcosystems Policy Sciences

Energy PolicyResearch on the Scientific Basis for Sustainability (RSBS) Secretariat

Environmental Resource Economics ScienceEnvironment Sustainable DevelopmentEnvironment and Planning B: Planning and Design Sustainability ScienceEnvironmental Development SustainabilityEnvironmental Engineering Science Sustainability: Science, Practice, & PolicyEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review Sustainable Development Law & PolicyEnvironmental Management System Dynamics ReviewEnvironmental Modelling & Software Systems PracticeEnvironmental Science & Technology The Academy of Management JournalFluid Phase Equilibria UNEPFORUM: Science and Innovation for Sustainable Development Urban EcosystemsGeomorphology Whole Earth

| 14

Table 2. Sustainability Science Survey Results Summary

Question 1. Classify your research (Stokes):

  Discipline All Respondents

Answer Categories Applied Science

Natural Science

Social Science Humanities Response

CountResponse Percent

Bohr's Quadrant 0 0 0 0 0 0%Edison's Quadrant 11 0 4 0 15 17.2%Pasteur's Quadrant 9 5 5 2 21 24.1%Mix of Edison's and Bohr's 0 2 0 0 2 2.3%Mix of Edison's and Pasteur's 10 10 13 0 33 37.9%Mix of Pasteur's and Bohr's 0 3 5 0 8 9.2%None of the Above 2 0 5 1 8 9.2%

Answered Question 32 20 32 3 87 100%Skipped Question 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Question 2. Classify Sustainability Science in general (Stokes):  Discipline All Respondents

Answer Categories Applied Science

Natural Science

Social Science Humanities Response

CountResponse Percent

Pasteur's Quadrant 11 4 9 0 14 17%Mix of Edison's and Pasteur's 12 12 6 1 31 37.8%None of the Above 1 0 4 2 7 8.5%Mix of all three 1 1 4 0 6 7.3%Other 6 3 5 0 14 17.1%

Answered Question 31 20 28 3 82 94%Skipped Question 1 0 4 0 5 6%

Question 3. Primary research audience?

  Discipline All Respondents

Answer Categories Applied Science

Natural Science

Social Science Humanities Response

CountResponse Percent

Policy Makers 4 5 6 0 15 19.7%Industry or commercial enterprises 9 0 3 0 12 15.8%

Other Scientists 12 14 14 2 42 55%Combination 2 1 2 0 5 7%Other 1 0 1 0 2 2.6%

Answered Question 28 20 26 2 76 87%Skipped Question 4 0 6 1 11 13%

Question 4. I collaborate with Industry…

  Discipline All Respondents

Answer Categories Applied Science

Natural Science

Social Science Humanities Response

CountResponse Percent

Very Often 12 1 5 0 18 23.4%Somewhat Often 4 1 3 0 8 10.4%Regularly 2 1 1 0 4 5.2%Somewhat Regularly 6 6 8 1 21 27.3%Never 4 10 10 2 26 33.8%

Answered Question 28 19 27 3 77 89%Skipped Question 4 1 5 0 10 11%

| 15